Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The trashing of Ed Snowden

Hump day. And I'm cold and tired. I've nearly fallen asleep repeatedly since 6:30 pm. I was watching Oz with my daughter and she kept shoving me in the shoulder saying, "Don't go to sleep, Daddy! This is the good part!" I don't know why I'm so sleepy.

I do know Ed Snowden is a whistle-blower and he did a good thing outing Barack's spying on Americans. Check out today's snapshot (later in this post) for C.I.'s commentary on Dick Durbin. I agree with C.I., it did sound like sour grapes on Durbin's part that Snowden was making more than him. It's funny because Durbin probably thought he was destroying Snowden with those comments and all he did was look petty. :D

Journalism attracts whistleblowers. In fact, some reporters need
whistleblowers in order to do their jobs. But there are plenty of
people working in the media who don't have much use for
whistleblowers--and they've been having a field day going after NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden.Washington Post columnist Matt Miller (6/11/13)
explained that "what Snowden exposed was not some rogue
government-inside-the-government conspiracy. It's a program that’s
legal, reviewed by Congress and subject to court oversight."Or to put it another way, it's a program that's secret, that the nation's top spy lies to Congress about, and the Supreme Court refuses to review--because, being secret, no one can prove they're affected by it.Miller went on:

Daniel Ellsberg says Snowden is a "hero." Let me suggest
a different prism through which to view that term. Somewhere in the
intelligence community is another 29-year-old computer whiz whose name
we'll never know. That person joined the government after 9/11 because
they felt inspired to serve the nation in its hour of need. For years
they’ve sweated to perfect programs that can sort through epic reams of
data to identify potential threats. Some Americans are alive today
because of her work.As one security analyst put it this week, to find a needle in a
haystack, you need the haystack. If we're going to romanticize a young
nerd in the intelligence world, my Unknown Coder trumps the celebrity
waiting in Hong Kong for Diane Sawyer’s call any day.

It's hard to imagine seeing Snowden sitting down with Sawyer anytime
soon, but Miller's certainly not alone in speculating about Snowden's
motives or psyche.

FAIR goes on to note others doing the same (including David Brooks).

That's because they want to make Ed Snowden seem toxic so people won't think about what Ed exposed.

Too bad for them, I don't think it will work.

I actually think that there will be a backlash from the people over these attempts by 'journalists' to trash Ed Snowden. There should be.

Scandals are running wild and free these days and if you doubt how serious they are, go visit The Daily Howler where
Bob Somerby who insisted in the mid '00s that the outing of CIA agent
Valerie Plame wasn't a scandal and didn't happen. (Somerby's friends
with Time's Matthew Cooper who Scooter Libby outed Plame too -- a
fact he always 'forgot' to disclose while hectoring the press about
ethics. Fortunately, we were here to help Bob Somberby by making the
disclosure he failed to -- and he can think his abusive friend for
informing us of the relationship.) Today, Bob's out to prove there are
no scandals. First off, a 'great' reporter has spoken on the spying of
Americans.

I like Walter Pincus and I know Walter Pincus. We're happy to highlight
Walter's reporting here. And we did during the Bully Boy Bush years.
And if Mitt Romney were President, we'd be highlighting Pincus now. But
there's no point in highlighting Walter when a Democrat is president
because Walter's in the tank. And what Bob Somerby's calling
"reporting" is actually a column and your first clue there is that it's
Walter's opinions. Walter runs interference for Democrats in the White
House. It's a tradition with him.

Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't live in a political closet. But that's not
why Somerby's hissing at him, Somerby's hissing over a the State Dept
scandal and furious with David Corn and Lawrence O'Donnell for a
discussion on O'Donnell's show. Which leads him to make these statements:The boys don't seem to know who their “whistle-blower” is. If they
watched Gregory Hicks testify in the House last month, they should know
that the tribal lunacy in which we wallow may have spread inside the
State Department by now.
The boys never extended this warning. Instead, they kept calling the
complaining party a “whistle-blower,” then found ways to say that his
presentation “already has an echo of truth to it.”

There is so much wrong with that but we'll just note two parts. First, apparently Somerby never saw the All In The Family
episode where Gloria tells the 'riddle' about the doctor who can't
operate on their own son. (Archie hems and haws and misses the point
because the doctor is . . . - gasp - a woman!) Doctors can be women.
You know what else, whistle-blowers can be women too. And in this case,
Somerby's "he" is a she.

Monday, CBS This Morning featured a report by John Wood where he spoke with whistle-blower Aurelia Fedenisn (link is video and text): According to Fedenisn, when a high-ranking State Department security
officials was shown a draft of their findings that investigations were
being interfered with by State Department higher-ups, he said, "This is
going to kill us." In the final report however, all references to
specific cases had been removed."I mean my heart really went out to the agents in that office,
because they really want to do the right thing, they want to investigate
the cases fully, correctly, accurately ... and they can't," Fedenisn
said.Fedenisn, a DSS agent for 26 years, was a part of the team that
prepared the draft report and is now a whistleblower who has taken her
concerns to Congress.

Aurelia Fedenisn is a she. And today, June 12th, Bob Somerby is
confused by that even though he's writing about it and CBS filed the
report Monday,June 10th. (I didn't see the report until this morning.
The first thing I did before writing about this at length this morning
was 'research,' called friends in the press and asked, "What am I
missing on this story? We just touched on it in the snapshot
yesterday.") Bob Somerby apparently has no friends to call on and his
long documented sexism surfaces again as he insists that O'Donnell and
Corn were discussing a man ("then found ways to say that his
presentation 'already has an echo of truth to it'"). Quickly, I also
don't know that you hector O'Donnell and Corn about their discussion
when you're too lazy to find out who the whistle-blower is when her
identity has been out there publicly for two days now. We'll come back
to the second point in just a second.

Acid, booze, and ass
Needles, guns, and grass
Lots of laughs lots of laughs
Everybody's saying that hell's the hippest way to go
Well I don't think so
But I'm gonna take a look around it though
Blue I love you
-- "Blue," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Blue album

Regarding the latest
allegations, CNN was provided the documents by a lawyer for a
whistle-blower who is a former senior inspector general investigator.

They include:

• An active U.S.
ambassador "routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to
solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children," the
memo says. The ambassador's protective detail and others "were well
aware of the behavior," the memo asserts. When a diplomatic security
officer tried to investigate, undersecretary of state for management Patrick Kennedy allegedly ordered the investigator "not to open a formal investigation."

On Tuesday, CNN obtained a statement from the ambassador, who vigorously denied the allegations, calling them "baseless."

BBC notes, "CNN also reports that the inspector general found an attempt to
investigate claims that a drug ring near the US embassy in Baghdad was
supplying illegal substances to state department security contractors
was stopped." The scandal may go to the fact that there is no Inspector General. There is a Deputy IG acting as IG. Back on December 7, 2011,
at the House Oversight
and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing, US
House Rep Jason Cahffetz, Chair of that Subcommittee, was outlining the
problems and the failures to nominate heads for the State Dept IG and
other positions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) really quickly, I just need to clarify something from yesterday --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: -- on the IG and this whole --MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: -- imbroglio. And that is the – specifically these
outside law enforcement experts who are working with the IG now, are
they investigating the specific incidents that were outlined in the 2012
October memo, or are they just investigating – or are they just looking
at the process?MS. PSAKI: Their focus, as we
understand it – and I would point you to the IG’s office, of course, to
confirm this, but their focus is on reviewing the process.

QUESTION: The process, okay.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So it is incorrect to say that the – there is some
kind of a new or outside investigation into the actual allegations that
are contained in that memo, the October 2012 memo. The investigations
into them were done by DS in-house, internally, and are either finished
or are in process. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: And the new – anything new – the outside experts –
doesn’t have to do with the facts or the non-facts, as the case may be,
in those specific incidents?MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the way that we understand it – and again, the IG’s office --

QUESTION: I understand.

MS. PSAKI: -- I’m just repeating, is independent, so I’d point
you to all of them, but is that they are looking into the processes as
it relates to these cases. So I’m not sure how they will go about that
process. They’re working with outside law enforcement. But the focus, as
you mentioned, is on taking a look at some of the issues raised in the
February memo.

QUESTION: Well, no, no. I understand, but they are not actually going – all right, say there’s incident X.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Okay? They’re not re-looking into the facts of
incident X; they are looking at how the DS investigators investigated
the facts of incident X, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is the focus. But to confirm everything they’re doing, I would point you to them.

QUESTION: Well, then let me put it another way. Once that –
once the outside experts are done, there isn’t going to – with their
probe – people who were involved and either disciplined or not
disciplined whatever for these incidents, their cases haven’t been
re-opened, have they?

MS. PSAKI: Well, some cases are ongoing.

QUESTION: But from the point of view of these outside law
enforcement experts that you talked about, they’re not re-looking into
the actual events or allegations.

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not trying to be tricky here with you at
all, I promise. I just don’t want to go too far in speaking on behalf
of the IG’s office. So the focus of their review is to look at the
process.

QUESTION: And whether or not investigators were improperly –
or whether there was – whether or not they are independent or there’s –
they have the appearance and --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: But --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: -- I would refer to them for more --

QUESTION: I have a --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- question on this as well.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Could you tell us how the allegations that were in
the original internal October 2012 memo came to light? That has not been
clear to me. Was it – because it was a routine review by the IG.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: So how did --MS. PSAKI: Well, all of those cases, which were from different
time periods, were already under review, so it depended on each case.
Each case is different.

QUESTION: So when the IG went in in October 2012, these
allegations had already been made within the DS, the DS was already
examining them?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t know under what circumstances
these allegations were made? Was it confidential tipoffs? Was it a
survey that was given out to workers? How did the allegations come to
light?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are different individual cases --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: -- which I don’t want to outline from here, of course.QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: So each case is different.QUESTION: Okay. So there wasn’t any kind of – they didn’t go
in and sit down and say, okay, everybody tell us if you’ve got any
concerns, and then they gathered it all up and then from that the
October ’12 memo was constructed?MS. PSAKI: Well, the memo was drafted, again, by the IG’s office.QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Right. So that was as part of a routine review. In
terms of what information they gathered, you’d have to talk to them
about it. But again, they didn’t have access to case files and there was
a great deal of unsubstantiated information in there. But I would speak
to them about how that memo was put together in particular.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Jen, another question on the IG, please?MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: We talked – CNN talked with Congressman Royce today,
and he said that there – one of the key issues beyond everything is
that there’s a lack of a permanent IG, and he said this has been going
on for years. Can you – do you agree that that indeed is one of – is a
problem, and can you explain why there is no permanent IG at this point?MS. PSAKI: Well, I can tell you first, one, we have received
Chairman Royce’s letter and are processing his request for further
information. We’re also working to schedule an appropriate briefing as
soon as possible. I know that wasn’t your question, but --

QUESTION: A briefing for us?

MS. PSAKI: For the Hill. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Oh, for the Hill. Not for us.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ve been briefing you quite extensively here, if I do say so myself.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: But in terms of the IG, absolutely, there is a need
to have a permanent IG in place. The Secretary has made a choice on
that front. In terms of when that will be fully through the process, I
don’t have any update on that, but it is something that is a priority
for him and he is focused on.QUESTION: Well, why isn’t there one, though, for this long a time?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know the history of why someone wasn’t
approved here or put through. I know people have been nominated at
various times, sometimes there’s a delay for reasons that are hard to
explain.

As you begin your tenure, we would like to raise an issue essential
to the proper functioning of the Department of State. For more than
five years, since January 16, 2008, the Department has lacked a
presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed Inspector General. That gap
of more than 1,840 days is the longest vacancy of any of the 73
Inspector General positions across the federal government. While this
would be problematic under any circumstances, the repeated criticisms of
the independence and effectiveness of that office by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) heighten the need for an appointment.

US House Rep Ed Royce: And needless to say, given Washington's
chronic budget deficit, wasteful spending is intolerable. But even good
programs must be subject to prioritization. We can't do everything.
Along those lines, it is inexcusable that the State Department has been
operating for four-plus-years without a presidentially-nominated,
Senate-confirmed Inspector General. This Committee is committed to its
responsibility for overseeing the spending and other operations of the
State Department -- and that is a bipartisan commitment I am pleased to
join Mr. Engel in carrying out.
Ed Royce is the Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and he
was speaking at this morning's hearing on the State Department's
proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2014. Appearing before him was
Secretary of State John Kerry. Engel is US House Rep Eliot Engel who
is the Ranking Member. Other than his remarks beating the drums on Iran
-- and praising US President Barack Obama for the same ("Over the past
four years, President Obama has unified the international community
against this threat and signed into law the strongest-ever sanctions
against the regime in Tehran."") -- his opening remarks really don't
require noting here nor do even of his remarks during questioning. If
you believe a House members greatest duty is to serve Israel, then I've
short changed you. If you believe a US House member needs to be
covering US issues, Eliot Engel has short changed you.

The issue Royce raised is not a minor one. We first noted it December 7, 2011
when US House Rep Jason Chaffetz raised it in a hearing. We've noted
this lack of oversight many times since including last month with "Media again misses story (lack of oversight)." Maybe if the press had covered it, the position wouldn't have remained vacant for this record length.

Chair Ed Royce: I'd also like to call your attention to the State
Department's Inspector General's Office. This is the key independent
office looking at waste and fraud. Mr. Secretary, as of today, there
has been no permanent State Department Inspector General for over five
years. This includes President Obama's entire first term. The
Committee raised this issue in a bi-partisan letter sent to you in
February and we would like to see an immediate appointment to this
position.Secretary John Kerry: On the IG, you're absolutely correct. We're
-- we're trying to fill a number of positions right now, the IG among
them. The greatest difficulty that I'm finding now that I'm on the
other side of the fence is frankly the vetting process. And I've got
some folks that I selected way back in February when I first came in and
it's now April and I'm still waiting for the vetting to move. I've
talked to the White House. They're totally on board. They're trying to
get it moved. So I hope that within a very short span of time, you're
going to see these slots filled. They need to be. And that's just the
bottom line. It's important and I commit to you, we will.Chair Ed Royce: I think this is the longest gap that we've had in
the history of this position. So if you could talk to the President
about this in short order, we would very much appreciate it. Secretary John Kerry: I don't need to talk to the President, we're
going to get this done. We know it and we're trying to get the right
people. Matching person to task and also clearing all the other
hurdles, as I am finding, is not as easy as one always thinks. But
we'll get it done.

This issue has been festering forever and the administration -- that
would be Barack, he was elected President of the United States (twice)
-- and it has been ignored repeatedly. If the allegations are true, the
lack of an IG is how that happened.

“In terms of whistleblower calculus, he fits—he had a reasonable
belief that he could get help there in time to at least minimize the
damage.”Radack has represented numerous federal whistleblowers, including
many from the State Department. She said that not only is Hicks
unquestionably a whistleblower but that his immediate poor performance
review and subsequent inability to get a good assignment easily
categorize as improper retaliation.“Those are two of the most classic, beginning ways to start the retaliation,” she said.Maybe Hicks is a bad manager, and maybe he isn’t—but Radack strongly
cautioned against anonymous sources trashing his character, something
she has repeatedly seen in other whistleblower cases. “This is very
typical of the kinds of attacks and baseless caricatures that
whistleblowers get painted about them as soon as they blow the whistle,”
she said. “The kind of smears I’m hearing are pretty much in keeping
with the smears I hear of other whistleblowers, including other State
Department whistleblowers I have.”Radack also noted that while it may be State Department policy to
have a lawyer present at all staff meetings with Congress, it isn’t a
good one. “My organization sees that as really just a whistleblower
deterrent, because if you’re going to Congress over something that your
agency is doing, then obviously the lawyer is going to stop you. These
are impediments that are being put up, in my opinion, that work against
whistleblowers,” she said.“The whistleblower has a First Amendment right to petition Congress
for a redress of grievances, and under that prong, I think they
should—do not pass go, go directly to Congress,” Radack continued.

Hicks is whistle-blower. Somerby's problem is he painted himself into a
corner on Susan Rice and 'never wrong!' Somerby can't leave that corner
now. So his embarrassing May 13ths posts against Hicks stand -- with
all their errors. How tired has Bob Somerby's act become? He's back to
attacking Maureen Dowd again today. Because he has no life, because he
hates women and most of all because he's got nothing new to say, hasn't
for years now. Substitute "writers" for "artists," and Joni Mitchell was describing Somerby's problems on Q with Jian Ghomeshi (CBC Radio One) yesterday,
"You know inspiration doesn't stay with a lot of artists for very
long. It's very brief. And you're in the game and you've got to keep
it sustaining something, right? You know, you notice like
one-trick-wonders, two good albums and then they peter out. You know to
sustain a gift for a long time is very rare."

Barack's spying on Americans? That's because of the lazy press, Somerby
argues today. While I love the idea of a free press, no one can be
harder on than me (and that's especially true offline). But exactly how
was the press supposed to report a program that not even Congress was
briefed on? Somerby is as tired as his folk hero (a male, naturally)
and needs to find some new chords to play because we've heard his tired
song over and over now and long for something new.

Speaking of sour grapes . . .

Senator Dick Durbin: I was on the intelligence community right at
the time of 9-11. I saw what happened immediately afterwards. There was
a dramatic investment in intelligence resources for our nation, to keep
us safe, a a dramatic investment in the personnel to execute the plan
to keep us safe. I trusted, and I still do, that we were hiring the very
best -- trusting them to not only give us their best in terms of
knowledge but also their loyalty to the country. I'd like to ask you
about one of those employees who is now in a Hong Kong hotel and what is
as follows: He was a high school drop out, he was a community college
drop out, he had a GED degree, he was injured in training for the US
Army and had to leave as a result of that and he took a job as a
security guard for the NSA in Maryland. Shortly thereafter, he took a
job for the CIA in what is characterized in the Guardian piece that was
published. At age 23, he was stationed in an undercover manner overseas
for the CIA and was given clearance and access to a wide varray -- a
wide array of classified documents. At age 25, he went to work for a
private contractor and most recently worked for Booz Allen, another
private contractor, working for the government. I'm trying to look at
this resume and background. It says he ended up earning somewhere
between $122,000 and $200,00 a year. [Fun facts: While 29-year-old Ed
Snowden may have made $200,000 a year, 68-year-old Dick Durbin makes
$174,000 a year as a senator. Durbin hails from Georgetown University
School of Foreign Service and received his law degree from Georgetown
University Law.] I'm trying to look at the resume background for this
individual who had access to the highly classified material at such a
young age with a limited educational and work experience, part of it as a
security guard and ask if you were troubled that he was given that kind
of opportunity to be so close to information that was critical to our
security?

Well at least Dickie didn't cry in public, right? That's a step up. He
was speaking at this afternoon's Senate Appropriations Committee
hearing -- and maybe he's angling for a pay raise for senators? Your
pay is based on a skill set. Director of National Security General
Keith B. Alexander made that point. I'm not surprised by that at all.

Alexander, Homeland Security's Rand Beers ("acting deputy"), NIST
Director Patrick Gallagher and Richard McFeely (Executive Assistant
Director of Criminal, Cyber, Reponse, and Services Branch- FBI) appeared
before the full Committee which Senator Barbara Mikulski is Chair of. Ava will be addressing Mikulski tonight at Trina's site (and may grab Dianne Fienstein as well). Wally
will cover a topic -- possibly Mike Johanns but he and Ava are
discussing that right now. Wally will be writing at Rebecca's site
tonight. Kat's
going to do an overview which will include Feinstein. By the way,
Ava's going to let it rip including a phrase I don't say in my personal
life but I do applaud her for it and agree with her and felt that way
last week when we encountered Mikulski as a Chair for the first time
last week. And Wally's saying that he's covering Jeff Merkley instead
and will also be noting the Committee Chair.

What we'll note here is Dianne Feinstein isn't the Chair of the Senate
Appropriations Commitee but acted as though she were. There was no
reason for her to be at the hearing, she heard from the witness
yesterday and will again tomorrow. It's not as though she added a damn
thing of value to the hearing. She was there to run interference. She
broke into others questioning. At a certain point, it stops looking
DiFi's protecting the law breakers and it becomes more obvious that
she's trying to prevent the public from grasping that DiFi is also
responsible for the spying.

In addition to that, we'll note this exchange.Senator Patrick Leahy: [. . .] I've had a lot of concern about
section 215 of The PATRIOT Act. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance [Act] -- FISA. We've had a number of common sense
proposals in the Judiciary Committee to improve these provisions but the
intelligence community has told us that, really, we obviously don't
have the ability as simple senators, to know anything as well as you do
and so they don't need changes, we're told they're critical to our
counterterrorism efforts, Congress shouldn't 'tinker,' we should simply
trust you to use in the right way and they should be made permanent.
Now I don't think that's wise. I think that there should be sunset
[automatic expiration] provisions and we should look at them
periodically. We should actually debate them in a free and open
society. Now we have information recently declassified by the Director
of National Intelligence -- and I'm not going into questions on whether
he contradicted himself on a couple of answers -- but taking what he's
recently declassified, it appears that Section 702 said was critical to
upsetting the Zazhi case in New York City. But it's not clear if data
collected pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot Act was similarly
critical or crucial. So, Gen Alexander, let me ask you this, has the
intelligence community kept track of how many times phone records
obtained through Section 215 of the Patriot Act were critical to the
discovery and disruption of terrorist threats? Gen Keith Alexander: I don't have those figures today. I --Senator Patrick Leahy: Are those -- are those figures available?Gen Keith Alexander: We're going to make those figures available. We promise --Senator Patrick Leahy: How soon?Gen Keith Alexander: Over the next week, it would be our intent to
get those figures out. I talked to the Intell Committee [Senate
Intelligence Committee] on that yesterday. I think it's important to
know --Senator Patrick Leahy: Wait a minute, wait a minute. You talked to
the Intell Community about this yesterday but you didn't have the
figures yesterday?Gen Keith Alexander: I gave an approximate number to them --

Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay, what's the approximate --

Gen Keith Alexander: It's classified. But it's dozens of terrorists events that these have helped prevent.

Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay, so dozens. Now we collect millions and
millions and millions of records to, uh, 215, but dozens have proved
crucial -- critical -- is that right? Dozens?Gen Keith Alexander: For both here and abroad. In disrupting or contributing to the disruption of terrorist attacks.Senator Patrick Leahy: Of all those millions, dozens have been critical? Gen Keith Alexander: That's correct.Senator Patrick Leahy: Would you give me the specific -- even if that's classified -- the specific cases we're talking about?Gen Keith Alexander: We will. But we're going through the Intell
Committee to do this. Tomorrow, I'll give as clear as we've vetted
precisely what we've done on each of those. And the reason I want to
get this exactly right, Senator, is because I want the American people
to know that we're being transparent in here. Senator Patrick Leahy: No, no, no, you're not giving it to the
American people. You're giving it classified to specific members of
Congress. Is that correct?Gen Keith Alexander: Well there's two parts. We can give the
classified. That's easy. But I think also for this debate, what you
are asking -- and perhaps I misunderstood this -- but I thought you were
also asking what we could put out unclassified. So the intent would be
to do both. Senator Patrick Leahy: You can do that in a week?Gen Keith Alexander: That is our intent. I am pushing for that and --Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay.Gen Keith Alexander: -- perhaps faster. If I don't get any kicks from behind me.Senator Patrick Leahy: If you don't get any what?Gen Keith Alexander: Kicks from the people behind me who are doing
the work because we do want to get this right. And it has to be vetted
across the community so that what we give you, you know is accurate, and
we have everybody here, especially between the FBI and the rest of the
intell community can say this is exactly correct.Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay. DNI [Director of National Intelligence
James] Clapper said that Section 702 collection is critical to the
discovery and disruption of the plot to bomb the New York City subway
system -- the Zazi case -- is that correct?Gen Keith Alexander: Uhm, that is correct. In fact, not just
critical, it is the one that developed the lead on it so I would say -- I
would say it was the one that allowed us to know it was happening.Senator Patrick Leahy: But that is different than Section 215.Gen Keith Alexander: That is different than Section 215.Senator Patrick Leahy: 215, Phone records. 702 --Gen Keith Alexander: If I could, I could explain this.Senator Patrick Leahy: Go ahead.Gen Keith Alexander: Uhm, because I do think it's important that we
get this right. And, uh, I want the American people to know that we're
trying to be transparent here, protect civil liberties and privacy but
also the security of this country. On the New York City one, the
[Najibullah] Zazi case, it started with a 702 set of information based
on operatives overseas. We saw connections to a person in Colorado.
That was passed to the FBI. The FBI determined who that person was and
phone numbers that went to that. The phone numbers on Zazi were the
things that then allowed us to use the business records, uh, FISA, to go
and find out connections from Zazi to other players, uh, to other
players throughout the community in New York City.Senator Patrick Leahy: Was 215 critical?Gen Keith Alexander: That's how -- I think 215 is corroborating and to helping us understand --Senator Patrick Leahy: Was it critical in Zazi?Gen Keith Alexander: Not to Zazi. Because the first part in Zazi went to the 702.Senator Patrick Leahy: And, and [David] Headly, was either 702 or 215 critical?Gen Keith Alexander: 702 on Headley and some on the business records
FISA for corroboarting. And I think it's important to understand
because this is an issue that I think we'll be important to the debate.
And I put on there, Senator, obviously, the Boston. I think we need to
walk through that so that what we have on the business records, FISA,
what we have on 702, what you debate, the facts that we can give you,
what we do with that, how we take that to the FBI, if we took that away
what we could not do and is that something when we look at this from a
security perspective --

Senator Patrick Leahy: In Boston, you're talking about the
marathon. What the FBI could have done was to pass on the information
to the Boston authorities who said they did not. That might have been
helpful too. But my time is up. I mention this only because before
it's brought up in the Judiciary Committee, we're going to be asking
some very, very specific questions.Gen Keith Alexander: So if I could, Senator, I'd just want to make
sure we're clear on what we're talking about here is that these
authorities compliment each other in helping us identify different
terrorist actions and help disrupt them.

On the spying scandals, Penny Lee (US News and World Reports) wonders if there are 2016 implications:Now, recent revelations of National Security Agency surveillance and the
PRISM program have renewed outrage within the progressive wing of the
Democratic Party over security matters – expressions of contempt for
those who voted to authorize these broad uses of power and profound
disappointment in the president over his administration's expansion of
what he vigorously opposed as a candidate. The liberal base is now
demanding a vote in Congress for a full repeal of the Patriot Act. In 2016, the Patriot Act could very well be the new "Iraq War Vote"
litmus test for the Democratic field as it speaks to a core principal
for the left – the need for fierce protection of personal liberties.
Two potential candidates, Clinton and Biden, are in the awkward
positions of having to both defend their past votes authorizing the
original Patriot Act, and their implicit support for the expansion of
the program while serving in the Obama Administration.

Did Iraq get a new library? Not yet. But being "Good" apparently means
applauding lip service. Now there have been so many promised projects
that have never materialized in post-2003 invasion Iraq but knowing that
might make "people who give a damn" educated and they'd never hop on
their high horses if they were smart enough to realize how harmed they
could be in a fall.

Here's another little clue for Good and Peters, buildings don't make
libraries: Information does. Considering some of the squabbling
currently going on about the national museum in Iraq (it's not been made
public yet so Good and Peters are forgiven for not knowing about it)
and what qualifies as "art" -- a debate built not around artistic merit
but on fundamentalist religious grounds -- I'd be really hesitant about
applauding any proposed library in Iraq before it opens. What will be
on the shelves?

"People who give a damn" might try to also become "People who are
factual." Peters writes, "The roof is filled with skylights to
illuminate the reading rooms, and solar panels to power the building.
It's scheduled to be built later this year." Until it's built, grasp
this, there is no roof -- not one filled with skylights or one empty of
skylights.

Peters has written an extremely idiotic post that's also highly
misleading as it features photos -- of what? What are these buildings?
Are these projections of what the library will look like? When you run
photos, if these are not photos, you need to say so. The photo credit
takes you to another site.
(At that site, click on "projects" and then select Baghdad library.)
There, via a 'ghosting' of people in one photo (you can see through the
people) you realize these are not images that were captured of a
building that is built but images that have been manipulated digitally.
You also find out that Good is cheering a project that they know will
be open by the end of the year. My calendar says it's 2013. The project
was started in 2011 and is listed as "ongoing" for its current status.
I'm not so sure it's going to be finished this year -- especially with a
pesky fact like the increased violence in Iraq the last two months.

At that site, you will find the claim, "This will be an accessible
library for all ages with access to a collection of over three million
books along with rare manuscripts, periodicals." You'd think that --
and not building plans -- would be the focus of someone excited about a
library.

But you'd think someone excited about a library, looking at these
digital images would be concerned with access and quickly note that
security's not a concern for the library and then quickly realize that
this isn't in Baghdad. Not Baghdad that Iraqis access. This is a
library that will be in the heavily fortified Green Zone that most
Iraqis are prevented from entering.

I have no idea why anyone would go with "Good" as the name of a group or
post -- to indicate others are "bad"? Or why they'd proclaim that they were "a community of people who give a damn." Are they unaware of Robert Burns' "To a Mouse, On Turning Her Up In Her Nest With The Plough"? "The best laid schemes of mice and men/ Often go awry."
Or of the saying, thought to have originated with St Bernard of
Clairvaux, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Maybe
instead of writing about a library, next time Good might try first visiting one.

While there, Peters can ask a reference librarian about books on attribution. She's using a long quote from a de zeen magazine article published yesterday and failed to attribute it to de zeen which, don't mean to upset "the people who give a damn" here, is also known as plagiarism.

Alsumaria notes
that Iraqis living in Wasit Province also have to deal with an
estimated 4,000 dogs running through the province in packs, scaring and
intimidating the citizens. If this seems familiar, yes, this was a
problem last year as well. Wasit Province attempted to kill the stray
dogs then. That effort appears to have made no real impact. Citizens
are attempting to use devices that provide ultrasound noises and run on
batteries to keep the dogs away.

Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:Supposedly, there's been spill-over violence in Iraq. It's strange,
though, that you can argue that al Qaeda in Iraq is rushing into Syria
and doing battle there and that it's also doing damage in Iraq and
responsible for the massive increase of violence in Iraq. It was just
like October that Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reporting
that "now, Iraqi and U.S. officials say, the insurgent group has more
than doubled in numbers from a year ago -- from about 1,000 to 2,5000
fighters." But since when have government claims -- US or Iraqi -- ever
made sense or been actually factual? They're in Syria, these 2,500
people, but also in Iraq, they're ripping apart Syria but also taking
Iraq to the worst violence in five years.

The second thing is to stop lending credence or validating the
propaganda claims of al-Qaeda and other terror groups. In 2005, while on
the Iraq Desk at the State Department, I recall reading the summaries
of interrogations of non-Iraqi fighters we had captured in Iraq (the
actual number of non-Iraqi fighters was quite small, in the few
hundreds). The overwhelming reason for their travel to Iraq to fight the
Americans were the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the photos from Abu
Ghraib and the stories from Guantanamo (the reason for the Iraqi
fighters fighting us was quite simple: we were there). Al-Qaeda's
message to its recruits is not one of establishing worldwide Muslim rule
or of gaining virgins in Paradise, but rather it is a defensive
message, an exhortation to defend Muslim lands, culture and people from
Western invasion and occupation, and, increasingly, revenge for American
attacks. The greatest recruitment event for al-Qaeda was not 9/11, but
rather the invasion of Iraq and subsequently, the escalation of the
Afghan War and the worldwide, too often indiscriminate, targeted killing
campaign (additionally, President Bush calling our actions in the
Muslim world a Crusade may be one of the greatest foreign policy
mis-pronouncements ever). So we need to stop validating and proving the
terror groups' propaganda and recruitment messages.

Matthew Hoh is an Iraq War veteran who deployed there as a Marine.
Later, working for the State Dept, he was part of Embassy teams in both
Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the world press has treated the meet-up between Nouri al-Maliki
and KRG President Massoud Barzani at the start of the week as a big
deal, in Iraq, the impression has been far less effusive. Today NINA reports
that Kurdistan Alliance MP Sirwan Ahmed Amin is predicting "failure of
ongoing dialogues between the central government and the Kurdistan
Regional Government." Also being a lot more realistic was Hanife Sede Kose (Todays Zaman), "Prospects for reconciliation between Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the president of the country's
Kurdistan region, Massoud Barzani, remain bleak after the two leaders
met in Arbil on Sunday to resolve long-running problems between them,
analysts note." UPI notes:Sunday's talks in Erbil between Maliki and Masoud Barzani,
president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, may have broken the
ice, but political sources said little of substance emerged that would
indicate some kind of settlement is possible.Maliki is incensed that the Kurds are now shipping their oil
northward to Turkey's export terminal on the Mediterranean, rather than
through the Oil Ministry's pipeline network, cutting Baghdad out of the
revenue loop.The Kurdish exports are being trucked across Turkey, but Ankara and
Erbil are building a new pipeline from Kurdistan to the Mediterranean
that's expected to be completed within the next few months. That would
allow the landlocked Kurds to export 250,000 barrels per day by the end
of 2013, 1 million bpd by 2015 and 2 million bpd by 2019.

Nouri's State of Law came in second place in the 2010 parliamentary elections to Iraqiya. Today All Iraq News notes:The head of the Iraqiya Slate, Ayad Allawi described last visit of
the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, to Kurdistan Region as aiming to calm down
the tensions after he failed to run the country.
Allawi mentioned in his personal Twitter page "Maliki's visit to KR came
to calm down the tensions after he failed to run the state following
his domination on the decision-making, thus created many problems."

Adam Schreck (AP) reports
that Nouri met in BAghdad with Kuwait's Prime Minister Jaber Al
Mubuarak Al Sabah. I don't understand this article. How do you write
about this meeting and not write about Chapter VII. That's what the
meeting was about. I do not understand why the US press repeatedly
fails to address Chapter VII. I've been at the UN watching the Security
Council briefings and heard Martin Kobler talk about Chapter VII and
seen US reporters leave that out, even when they quote him right before
he mentioned Chapter VII and right after. Why is Chapter VII such a
damn secret?

Kuwait is owed, the United Nations determined, reperations by Iraq for
Iraq's war on Kuwait. Until those monies are paid off, Iraq remains in
Chapter VII. This is a huge issue to Iraq. Every year, Nouri sends a
representative to appear before the UN Security Council and make the
case that 'enough has been done' and Iraq should be removed from Chapter
VII. How do you _____ miss this over and over except intentionally?
I'm printing this in full because it's in English. If I translate an
Arabic article on this, e-mails will insist that I made it up (because
they can't read Arabic and suddenly that's my problem). Here's Aswat al-Iraq on Monday:

It
is expected that the UN Security Council will meet at the end of this
month to discuss moving Iraqi-Kuwaiti dossiers from Chapter VII to
Chapter VI, following Kuwaiti preliminary acceptance of this move.

Legal
advisor of Premier Nouri al-Maliki Fadhil Mohammed Jawad stated that
moving these dossiers means that UN mission in Iraq will follow up the
questions of Kuwaiti prisoners and properties, not the Security Council.

Iraq
pays 5% of its total oil revenues to Kuwait according to the
compensations decided by the United Nations for the damages of Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

"By
this change, Iraq will be benefited in trade and bank transactions, as
well as the dangers in fields of economic exchange and investments.

In the November 29, 2012 and November 30, 2012
snapshots, we covered Martin Kobler (UN Secretary General's Special
Representative to Iraq) testifying before the Security Council on
November 29th.

Martin Kobler: In addition to the hydrocarbons legislation, we
are continuing to provide technical advice and assistance on the
establishment of the Federation Council, the reform of the judicial
system, and the adoption of laws on minority communities and political
parties. At the regional level, Iraq continues its re-emergence onto
the international stage. Earlier this year, Iraq demonstrated renewed
commitment to meeting its remaining obligations under Chapter VII of the
Charter and to improving its bilateral relations with Kuwait. Progress
will, however, depend upon the restoration of confidence between both
sides. Over the past few months, I stepped up my engagement with Iraq
and Kuwait to see how the United Nations could best facilitate the
resolution of outstanding issues in accordance with the relevant
resolutions of the Security Council. And, in this context, I recently
held high-level meetings in Iraq and Kuwait in which I was encouraged
by the strong commitment that both Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Amir
of Kuwait expressed by normalizing relations between their two
countries. I very much hope that they will now be able to move
quickly. They can count on the UN in this regard. I am happy to report
to the Council today that I spoke to Foreign Minister [Hoshyard]
Zaebari this morning. He informed me that, first, his government
had nominated the names for the technical team of the border maintenance
project today and, second, the government would start immediately to
update the list of farmers entitled to compensation. A meeting with the
farmers will take place as soon as possible. I welcome those steps and
call on the Government of Iraq to initiate work on the border
maintenance project without further delay. I also appeal to the
government of Iraq to continue to demonstrate the goodwill necessary
to fulfil Iraq's other outstanding obligations, in particular with
regard to missing persons and property. The commitment of Iraq to
fulfil those obligations will be conducive to the normalization of
relations between the two countries. And I equally call on the
government of Kuwait to continue to act in a spirit of flexibility and
reciprocity, as reflected earlier this year by the important reciprocal
visits of the Amir in Baghdad and the Prime Minister in Kuwait. On a
different note, I remain fully committed to continue to work with both
governments to resolve bilateral issues, at their request. I am hopeful
that the agreement between Kuwait and Iraq for the cancellation of
pending lawsuits against Iraqi Airways and on navigational rights in the
Khor Abdullah waterway will facilitate improved relations between the
two neighbors.

We're noting that because some people will use the Adam Schreck link,
not know what's going on, but feel the need to e-mail that Schreck wrote
about the plane! Sorry, Tatoo, the plane isn't the issue. That's not
what got them in Chapter VII. Which is why Kobler says "on a different
note" after discussing Chapter VII.

We have written Chapter VII repeatedly and, in the last few years,
repeatedly noted it's the only big stick the US has left. The US is a
voting member of the UN Security Council. Which means they can stop
Chapter VII from being removed. And they should be using that power to
demand improvements in human rights in Iraq.

Michael Young (The National) notes how little influence the US has today: Mr Obama washed his hands of a country that had cost the US thousands
of lives and billions of dollars without first attempting to contain
Iran's growing influence there. While Mr Bush had facilitated Iran's
agenda there by removing the Iraqi regime, Mr Obama seemed unperturbed
by the fact that Washington's principal regional rival would benefit
from too hasty a US disengagement.The loss of Iraq was compounded
by a far more serious strain on American alliances when the so-called
Arab Spring broke out in early 2011. No matter how justified, the Obama
administration's decision to persuade the Egyptian president, Hosni
Mubarak, to step down had two consequences: it pushed an allied country
into a prolonged period of political uncertainty and it alarmed another
long-standing ally, Saudi Arabia, which came to question American
reliability.

The US continues to arm Nouri and he uses those arms against the Iraqi
people -- just as then-Senator Joe Biden predicted in the infamous April
2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Chapter VII is pretty
much it now in the US diplomatic tool kit. You'd think its importance
would mean that US reporters would finally begin noting it.

Back to the US which means back to the scandals. In yesterday's snapshot, we noted James Clapper's many tales to cover up Barack's spying on American citizens. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes Clapper today:Since Clapper’s crimes are in many ways the same as Obama’s crimes, it
isn’t that surprising that the White House is defending him. Yet as the
scandal lingers, Clapper’s lies and the compounding factor that they
were made under oath could make him a political liability, one the
administration may eventually have to ditch as it struggles to keep its
surveillance apparatus intact.

If you flip through that site's pictures, you're taken through what is
supposed to be a library to suddenly inside a building that is clearly
an athletic stadium.

C.I.: In 2008, for three days, then-General David Petraeus and
then-Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified to Congress. Over and
over. And we were at those hearings, all four of us, and none of those
hearings lasted eight hours. The biggest problems, the real reason it
went over, was because it wasn't a hearing about the issues. It was
largely a hearing about how Senator Kirsten Gillibrand must be wrong.
Carl Levin and many others wasted time on that over and over. I'm not
saying she's wrong, by the way, I agree with her. But Levin and many
others wanted to turn the hearing into that. And that was on the first
panel, the second panel and the third. Kat?Kat: I have never seen that before in any hearing we have
attended. I have strong praise for Gillibrand because she was not just
standing up to a number of Republicans on the Committee, she was also
having to stand up to the military brass and to members of her own party
on the Committee including the Chair. Dona: What is she proposing?Kat: "S. 967 the Military Justice Improvement Act, a critical
bill that professionalizes the military justice system
by ensuring that trained, professional, impartial prosecutors control
the keys to the courthouse for felony-
level crimes while still allowing commanders to maintain
judicial authority over crimes that are unique to
the military and requiring more expeditious and localized justice to
ensure good order and discipline." Like C.I., I'm quoting from the Service Women's Action Network summary of the bill. They are backing that bill.Dona: So all she's doing is asking that felony crimes be decided by prosecutors and not by military commanders. Kat: Right, to hear Levin and Senator James Inahofe and so many
others, this will destroy the military. It will end all order. Do you
believe that? I don't. I'm like C.I., this really wasn't an issue for
the first half of the 20th century and commanders really just crafted
this power in the second half -- because rape wasn't a talked about
issue in an all male military -- and they're acting like this is a power
they were given and have had. Now the reality is that they've abused
this power. They have used it to protect friends. Dona: There's the infamous case of the commander who overturned
the assault conviction of a friend last February. And that's just most
recently. Wally, the hostility towards Gillibrand?Wally: It was there. And I would argue that's why she was
treated rudely by the generals. I'd argue the women were all treated
poorly and I would blame Carl Levin for that. Maybe he needs to step
down? He created a men versus women split, enforced it, promoted it.
And the rudeness that was directed at the women by the first panel and
by the members of the Committee went on until Senator Bill Nelson did
his questioning. He was loud and he spoke slow. He's not a rapid
talker most of the time. But he was louder than usual and slower than
usual. And a lot of the nonsense stopped immediately. You could feel a
level of recognition register with the panel of the fact that they were
before Congress and they immediately got more respectful.Dona: You pointed out that Senator Kay Hagan went after Nelson
and not only were they respectful but Gen Ray Odierno made a point of
thanking her for her question.Wally: Right. There was so much disrespect on the Committee.
From the top, from Levin. And, sadly, from Inahofe. I say "sadly"
because the hearing wouldn't have been as out of control at the start if
the Republicans didn't have term limits on Committees. Term limits is
why Senator John McCain wasn't Ranking Member. And McCain's on the
Committee still and he was much more respectful than Inhofe or Carl
Levin. If I were a woman on the Senate, I'd be registering a complaint.Ava: But to who? There are 100 senators -- counting the one New
Jersey Governor Chris Christie just appointed. Only 20 are women.
That's a fifth. They are not in leadership and you could argue that
Harry Reid being Senate Majority Leader goes a long way towards
endorsing disrespect for women. If I were on the Senate, I'd be very
depressed. And I think Wally is exactly right. I think Senator Nelson
saw just how out of control the hearing was becoming and just how much
disrespect was being shown to senators on the panel and I think he used
his volume and speaking pace intentionally to snap the panel to
attention.C.I.: In a way, the way the women on the Committee were treated
was perfect because it demonstrated the problem that women in the
military have. There are peers they serve with like a Bill Nelson who
take the issue seriously but there are others that they serve with who
just don't have a clue.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) announced on Tuesday he
is replacing a measure proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
that would have removed military sexual assault crimes from being
handled within the military chain of command. Levin’s replacement
measure would keep authority on major military crimes with senior
officers.

Gillibrand’s measure, part of a defense spending bill, was an attempt
to improve the reporting and prosecution of sexual assault within the
military by giving military prosecutors, instead of the accusers’
commanders, authority to decide which cases to try. Opposition to the
measure comes from Levin, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the military. Levin’s Senate measure was approved by the Armed Services Committee by a 17-9 vote.

Gillibrand's bill wasn't controversial. It also was also distorted by opponents. Most importantly, it works in England. Katty Kay, filling in for Diane Rehm on The Diane Rehm Show's first hour May 24th, made that point,
"And I think Sen. Gillibrand has already -- of New York has already
proposed a bill to that effect. And actually, it is what happens in the
U.K. We have an independent judiciary process that -- prosecutorial
process that deals with sexual assault cases. In the British military,
it does seem to work more effectively. " Gillibrand's bill was
important and it was one of seven bills attempting to address the issue
of rape and assault in the ranks. One of the seven has made it into the
Defense Bill today, Senators Patty Murray and Kelly Ayotte joint-bill:

FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202)
224-2834

Wednesday, June
12, 2013 Ayotte Press Office (202) 224-3324

MURRAY-AYOTTE
MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT LEGISLATION INCLUDED IN DEFENSE BILL

Bipartisan
legislation would provide trained military lawyers to victims of sexual assault
in all service branches

WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Senators Patty Murray
(D-WA) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) announced today that key provisions of their
bipartisan legislation – the Combating Military Sexual Assault Act – are
included in the National Defense Authorization Act being considered this week by
the full Senate Armed Services Committee. The Murray-Ayotte measure would
provide victims of sexual assault in all military branches with a Special
Victims’ Counsel (SVC), a trained military lawyer to assist the victim
throughout the legal process. The bill also includes provisions authored by
Senators Murray and Ayotte that enhance responsibilities for the Pentagon’s
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and provide Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators to members of the National Guard and Reserve.

“Our legislation to provide victims with a
dedicated legal counsel absolutely gets to the heart of effectively addressing
the tragic epidemic of sexual assault in our military,” said Senator Murray. “As I told Secretary Hagel and General
Dempsey this morning, Congress must act on legislation to give victims the
protections they deserve to seek justice, while giving the Pentagon the tools to
deal with this growing crisis. I am pleased the Senate Armed Services Committee
agrees and has included our
legislation to help victims every step of the way
through what is a deeply personal and painful process. I want to thank Senator
Ayotte for being such an outstanding partner and for all she has done to push
this bill forward in committee. While I believe the overall legislation is
practical and will make a difference, there will always be more work to do and I
am committed to continuing this fight on behalf of our nation’s heroes of the
past, present and future.”

“This is not
something that we’re going to pass today and then forget about,” said
Senator Ayotte during today’s committee markup of the defense authorization
bill. “Because many of us will continue to serve on this committee and we’ll
expect to understand how this system is working, we’ll expect to hear real
metrics back as to whether victims can come forward, how many victims are coming
forward, and how they are treated within this system. And this will not be the
last time the military hears from Congress on this issue.”

In a statement
endorsing the Murray-Ayotte SVC legislation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Martin Dempsey said,“The Air Force Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) pilot
program, while very new, has shown positive results and provides a robust
support program for victims of sexual assault. Hundreds of victims have
availed themselves of SVC services in the Air Force in just the past several
months since it was implemented. Many of those victims who initially filed
restricted reports of sexual assault decided to change their report to
unrestricted, allowing full investigation of the offenses committed by their
assailant. As the early reports have been so promising, I expressed in my
May 20, 2013, letters to Senators Levin and Inhofe that the proposed SVC
legislation had merit. I support providing victims of sexual assault this
important resource.”

The
Murray-Ayotte Combating Military Sexual Assault Act (S.871) takes additional
steps aimed at reducing sexual assaults within the military and helping the
victims of these crimes. The legislation would address a number of gaps in
current law and policy and would build upon the positive steps the Pentagon has
taken in recent years to address this problem.
The Murray-Ayotte bill currently has 37 bipartisan
cosponsors.

·Provide
victims of sexual assault with Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) – a military
lawyer who will assist sexual assault victims throughout the process.

·Enhance
the responsibilities and authority of DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response (SAPR) Office so that it can better oversee efforts to combat MSA
across the Armed Forces and regularly track and report on a range of MSA
statistics, including assault rate, number of cases brought to trial, and
compliance with appropriate laws and regulations within each of the individual
services.

·Refer
cases to the general court martial level when sexual assault charges are filed
or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest
in the immediate chain of command.

·Bar
sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of
completion of basic training or its equivalent.

·Ensure
that Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC) are available to members of the
National Guard and Reserve at all times and regardless of whether they are
operating under Title 10 or Title 32 authority.

Followers

About Me

I'm Michael, Mike to my friends. College student working his way through. I'm also Irish-American and The New York Times can kiss my Irish ass. And check out Trina's Kitchen on my links, that's my mother's site.